beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 26, 2016 to April 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is a legally married couple who completed the marriage report with C on February 16, 2012, and the Defendant, from around that time to June 2015, committed an unlawful act with C by doing so, thereby suffering mental harm to the Plaintiff, and thus, is obliged to pay 30 million won as consolation money.
2. Determination
A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff regarding the allegation of fraudulent act by April 2014 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant committed a fraudulent act with C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. As to the assertion of fraudulent acts from May 2014 to February 2015, the Defendant is recognized as having conducted a foreign teaching system with C from May 2014, but, in other words, the Defendant believed that C was divorced with the Plaintiff and would have conducted a foreign teaching system with C, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Defendant: (a) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s community life by intention or negligence; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
C. Determination as to the assertion of fraudulent acts from March 2015 to June 2015, however, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 5 to 8, the Plaintiff called to the Defendant around March 2015, and protested against C with the Defendant, and the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff even when receiving a claim from the Plaintiff, continued to recognize the fact that the foreign teaching system with C was separated from the Defendant until June 2015.
Therefore, even though the defendant knew around March 2015 that the plaintiff did not have a divorce with C and that he had an intention to maintain the matrimonial relationship with C, since C continued sexual intercourse with C and caused mental suffering to the plaintiff, it is necessary to pay consolation money to avoid such mental suffering.